Archive for June, 2010

Arts Ed Shouldn’t Be an “Either/Or” Proposition

June 9, 2010

Alliance: Last week, as the California Assembly prepared to vote on AB 2446 (Furutani), the Alliance put out a call to arts education advocates.1500 advocates responded, sending messages of opposition to their representatives in the Assembly. We were inspired by the response and share one of those letters with you here. It was written by Bill Martinez, a music teacher in San Dimas, California.

Although the bill passed in the Assembly, we will continue our fight in the Senate. At a time when local districts have been forced to drastically cut art and music programs, this bill would further diminish access to arts education. It changes the high school graduation requirement, forcing students to choose between the Arts and Career Technical Education (CTE) and Foreign Language. As Martinez explains below, an “either / or” choice doesn’t serve California’s students


My wife and I have both been Music teachers for 15 years. During this time we have had the good fortune to work in communities that have supported our efforts to improve the educational experiences of our students. Unfortunately, we have also had to deal with adversity common to arts teachers in California but uncommon to teachers in other core subjects. (I need to stress that Music and the Arts are Core subjects under No Child Left Behind.) Assembly Bill 2446 appears to be yet another symptom of the lack of regard and respect paid to our chosen subject matter.

Proof of the value of Music and Arts Education is abundant; I encourage you to go to the Music Educators National Conference website – – for a sampling of the abundance of research available on the subject. Despite this, for 15 years we have had to justify our value to the school curriculum over and over again: Budget problems, the perception that the Arts are a “luxury”, old and irreparable equipment (instruments) that can’t or won’t be replaced due to budget concerns, school site plans that take Arts availability away from students who score low on a standardized test, and the obsessive over-reliance of data from these tests that have turned students into statistics – Arts programs have survived, and in many schools thrived despite these obstacles. Arts advocacy has become a second (unpaid) job for many Arts teachers, and it will continue to be as long as our place in the curriculum needs to be justified.

Lumping other educational areas together with Arts education under one umbrella, as this appears to do, cheapens the value of all the courses involved. Could anyone imagine telling a high school student that they could fulfill a graduation requirement by taking either Algebra or Biology?

Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of Vocational courses, Arts education is unique and valuable on its own terms. It is certainly a component of the “College-Going-Culture” touted by school administrators and by the State’s own Taking Center Stage II” initiative. And it deserves to be preserved and expanded whenever possible. Any legislation that restricts student access to the Arts, or relegates it to “optional” status, as this appears to do, should not be considered. And I would certainly hope that the Governor, whose own wealth and status are a direct result of Arts involvement, would feel the same way, and that his example would inspire you to encourage advocating the Arts for all students.

Bill Martinez
San Dimas, California